True Grit: 1969 vs 2010
After broaching the subject a few days ago I plopped down a few hard earned dollars and took in the new incarnation of True Grit.
Jeff Bridges is not the first actor to try to step into the boots of Reuben J. Cogburn after John Wayne. Warren Oates (The Wild Bunch, Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia) tried it for a failed TV pilot. Like Oates, Jeff Bridges plays the role in full beard and, as an added touch, moves the patch over to the other eye. That and the guttural growl he adopts almost makes it seem like he's trying too hard to be the anti-Wayne.
The loss of Wayne can not be overstated. The three main characters are basically unlikeable. Mattie Ross is a brat in everybody's version and LaBoeuf is a pompous ass as well. Wayne made Cogburn likable in a way that Bridges does not.
The Coen brothers promised to follow Charles Portis' novel more closely than than Marguerite Roberts did in 1969. Yet eighty-five percent of the movie is a shot-for-shot, word-for-word replay. (Roberts was an avowed communist who was blacklisted after failing to cooperate with the HUAC committee in 1951. The ferociously anti-communist Wayne didn't seem to mind calling her script the best he had ever read.) The restored material seems to slow the film down despite the fact that the current film screens in 18 less minutes. There are scenes that neither help develop the characters nor the plot.
Even Carter Burwell's minimalist score,designed to be more in line with the period, lacks the inspiration of Elmer Berstein's soaring original.
In short, it would be much easier to enjoy this film if one had never seen the 1969 version.
- Comment (27)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: True Grit: 1969 vs 2010
I didn't see the original, I loved this. I thought all the main characters were very likable.
I will be seeing the original, but I note that every review of the original I've read said the girl was annoying and the LaBaeuf character was badly acted; here the girl is a revelation and Matt Damon turns in an excellent performance.
Edited on Dec 26, 2010 at 6:16pmJun '10
Re: True Grit: 1969 vs 2010
I saw the movie this weekend with some trepidation because I am a big fan of ------------>>
The movie is dark, in the way that Deadwood is dark, this West is not the fantasy of a boy playing at cowboys. Bridges and Damon are spot on and Hailee Steinfeld's Matty Ross was hilarious and touching.
May '10
Re: True Grit: 1969 vs 2010
Glen Campbell had a hit television show during the time True Grit was filmed. It was not an inspired choice.
Hailee Steinfeld may be a better actress than Kim Darby, but ask the parent of any 14-year-old if they find the character of Mattie Ross obnoxious. She is dark and humorless. As for Darby, she actually got good reviews when the movie was released in '69. Roger Ebert said she played the role "with the freshness of sweet cream."
He was equally effusive over Wayne. "He brings an ease and authority to the character. He never reaches. He never falters. It's all there, a quiet confidence that grows out of 40 years of acting. God loves the old pros."
In his current review of the Coen's effort in the Chicago Sun-Times he writes, "We always knew we were looking at John Wayne in the original “True Grit” (1969). When we see Rooster Cogburn in this version, we're not thinking about Jeff Bridges"
No, we're still thinking of John Wayne.
Jul '10
Re: True Grit: 1969 vs 2010
I never thought much of John Wayne as an actor. I thought he was wooden, two-dimensional and, um, slow. I think his appeal was simply iconic - the stoic American hero. Compare any of his performances to Clint Eastwood or Gene Hackman in "Unforgiven" - Wayne suffers greatly.
But, to be fair, I have a hard time watching almost any film made before the 1970's - everything about cinema has come a long, long way.
May '10
Re: True Grit: 1969 vs 2010
Have you ever seen The Quiet Man?
Oct '10
Re: True Grit: 1969 vs 2010
Funny, as I came to the end of the post I was thinking that since I didn't see the original I probably enjoyed it more than others. I did think that it ended abruptly. I expected it to take longer to get the villain. The movie seemed to spend more time in the lead up to the pursuit. Maybe those who have read the novel can tell us how it goes in the book. My bias may be towards adventure dramas where the action is taking place in the journey but overall I thought it was worth the money.
May '10
Re: True Grit: 1969 vs 2010
In there lies danger. I appreciate the sense of ownership that both novelist and reader have of a book but I also appreciate that film and page are two different mediums and what makes a story enjoyable in one art form does not necessarily translate to the other. Books faithfully made into film often plod.
And we are in an "ownership" world in the arts. Unlike the temporary world of stage performance, recording medium is forever. Actors now "own" certain roles the way singers "own" songs. Edwin Booth or Laurence Olivier as Hamlet? Who knows? Who cares? But we're still arguing about who was the better Darrin in Bewitched!
And do you like your Beatles songs by the Beatles or the cast of Glee?
It's all matter of perspective and exposure. If you've never read the novel but seen the original movie you'll have a different experience from the person who's done both. Despite the availability of the 1969 movie on DVD, the Coen Brothers version will be the first exposure to the story for many.
Re: True Grit: 1969 vs 2010
Pilgrim: Bridges and Damon are spot on and Hailee Steinfeld's Matty Ross was hilarious and touching. · Dec 26 at 6:51pm
I agree -- I thought Steinfeld was amazing in the role. I was skeptical that Damon would deliver, but I thought he hit the role dead on. And Bridges, per usual, was fantastic.
(A less fantastic Bridges movie that I also saw recently was Tron).
Aug '10
Re: True Grit: 1969 vs 2010
I adored the new Coen Brothers adaptation of Charles Portis' novel. It is certainly true that Bridges is no Wayne in this film, or in others. Both are capable actors, but Wayne has a charisma that makes for truly lovable characters. One of the key differences between the Coen Brothers film and the Hathaway version is that the new film is Mattie's story, where Hathaway's is Cogburn's story. Both are legitimate versions of the tale, and both make for wonderful storytelling. I was engrossed at the additions the Coens added from the book, and intrigued at some of the things they excluded and added to the tale.
The Quantrill Raiders argument was a nice, and new, addition to the tale.
One should note that Portis' Cogburn is 40 and looks like "Grover Cleveland." This is a very different image than portrayed in either the Wayne or the Bridges versions of the character.
There is a nice post-Peckinpah verisimilitude in the Coen picture that is lacking in the Hathaway version.
Mattie's precociousness is due to her exhibiting the manly virtues in ways others in society are not. Society is becoming soft and relativistic, she isn't.
May '10
Re: True Grit: 1969 vs 2010
It's actually in both, but the latter discussion in more protracted.
The guy in the bear suit?
Then 40 could be pretty old. But not to today's sensibilities (or even those of 1969).
Kenneth touched on the raw differences of cinema between then and now. But in many ways we are also rawer in our so-called "sophistication." Hathaway didn't need to show the gratuitous violence to advance the story the way the Coen's felt they needed to. Explicit hangings or blood spatter does not a better story make.
Nov '10
Re: True Grit: 1969 vs 2010
Coen Brothers movies are of a type. And that they were doing this movie was my was particular motivation for seeing it. I wasn't disappointed. Their best since Millers Crossing.
Aug '10
Re: True Grit: 1969 vs 2010
The hanging was less explicit than in Portis' novel. He describes the prolonged twitching of one of the victims.
I wouldn't call the Coen's version more sophisticated, only different. I am one who prefers rawer films in some circumstances and softer films in others. I agree that film critics often mistake raw for sophisticated, but too often other people avoid the raw to "save the children" when all it does is soften the children and undermine the development of spiritedness.
Which has a great deal to do with the moral lesson of Portis' tale. The last two lines of the first chapter are, "He had mistaken the drummers for men. 'The wicked flee when none pursueth.'" This is a reference to how the town failed to enforce the law and pursue a murderer, leaving it to a 14 year old girl to do the classically virtuous thing.
There are few "men" in True Grit, just as there are increasingly fewer today.
My one disappointment was the Coen's choice to continue with an older Tom Chaney. In the book, he is 25 and I would have liked to see a younger actor in the role.
Re: True Grit: 1969 vs 2010
Both the book and the movie were discussed at some length on the podcast this week, including a dramatic reading by Rob Long of the first line of the book. All in all, one of our best podcasts of the year, in my humble opinion. Not to be missed.
May '10
Re: True Grit: 1969 vs 2010
Many will find the Coen's version more authentic in its brutality. But it is not always a component of good storytelling. If it was live theater would have died out decades ago.
In a way we also had this discussion in regards to the way movies portrayed combat in WWII. It created an almost sanitized concept of that conflict that served to ennoble the whole venture. In reality it was incredibly repulsive and nasty, however necessary.
And many of you thought a 21-year-old Kim Darby was unconvincing as a Mattie! But in a rewatching of the '69 version last night I took note that her age was never mentioned.
Re: True Grit: 1969 vs 2010
I'm filing the minority report for "True Grit", which turned out to be the movie that fell the farthest short of my expectations in 2010. EJ lays out a few of my criticisms in his original post, but a few more bear mentioning:
I'm a fan of Jeff Bridges, the Coen Brothers, the western genre, and occasionally Matt Damon (when he's not shilling for Howard Zinn). But this one didn't work for me.
May '10
Re: True Grit: 1969 vs 2010
Troy Senik:
The dialogue is incredibly stilted on paper and not much better coming out of the actor's mouths. There's a lot more telling than showing, which I always take as a sign of a week screenplay.
In a 1969 article Darby recounted how she tried to go months at a time without using contractions in her everyday speech as she prepared to take on the role.
Edited on Dec 27, 2010 at 12:21pmAug '10
Re: True Grit: 1969 vs 2010
Living in Western Missouri, the legends of the James Boys, Quantrill's Raiders and the rest are as close as some friend's ancestral relative. To hear Mattie call Frank James "trash" was absolutely priceless.
In the all the kerfuffle about the new movie, I found that Amazon was sold out of the book. All the reviewers that had read the book repeatedly said that it was far superior, as were his other books. Now I have to waitlist the book.
The movie was slow, the action was good, and the dentistry was accurate.
Those sympathies that followed the men from the Civil War as they lost themselves in the wilderness and wildness died very hard. There are stories echoing around my town still about feuds and hard feelings that carried into the First World War when a stately mansion, owned by a Confederate Colonel made entirely from black walnut, was torn apart by hand and the wood turned to gunstocks. The mob went there and demanded he surrender the house or it would burn. The 95 yr old man couldn't do much except stand aside.
Edited on Dec 27, 2010 at 2:06pmOct '10
Re: True Grit: 1969 vs 2010
Santa gave me "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly" on Bluray--my favorite western film ever. Realism is over rated when you talk about westerns.
Check out "The Searchers" where John Wayne is a vengeful racists, then tell me he can't act.
As a huge Coen brothers fan (I even liked Intolerable Cruelty), but for some reason I dislike Jeff Bridges. Count me in the "waiting for netflix" column on True Grit.
Jun '10
Re: True Grit: 1969 vs 2010
Pilgrim: I saw the movie this weekend with some trepidation because I am a big fan of ------------>>
The movie is dark, in the way that Deadwood is dark, this West is not the fantasy of a boy playing at cowboys. Bridges and Damon are spot on and Hailee Steinfeld's Matty Ross was hilarious and touching. · Dec 26 at 6:51pm
Spot on!
All the Westerns made in the near future will become known as Westerns in the wake of Deadwood. The cinematography, dialogue, sepia-darkness and weird ticks and twitches were all there.
And, I should add, I loved Deadwood. Thought a remake of True Grit was a great idea and that idea was perfect for this generation of films and film-goers.
May '10
Re: True Grit: 1969 vs 2010
The Coens' True Grit is excellent -- much better than the 1970s original, which I popped into the DVD player shortly after getting home from this remake. The earlier version seemed sappy-around-the-edges by comparison. Hailee Steinfeld was particularly strong, and Matt Damon was better than Glen Campbell. The dialog, directing, score and cinematography were also superior.
Jeff Bridges and John Wayne were much different Rooster Cogburns, but I thought both were outstanding in their own way.
True Grit is such a straight-on, irony-free Western that it's hard to make an apples-to-apples comparison. Personally, I liked Fargo and the Big Lebowski better than Miller's Crossing, but won't argue your overall point.